I think I’m almost ready to start–at least with the dragons’ part of the story. But inspiration has at least been flowing on how that will work–I hope.
Meanwhile, continuing some research on the oldest part of the Arthur legend–which, hopefully, is also the closest to whatever historical persons or events may underlie it.
If there was an Arthur–or someone who did the major thing that Arthur was supposed to have done–it was probably around the year 500.
From the middle of the 1st Century until early in the 5th Century, Britain (south of Scotland) was part of the Roman Empire. In 410, the Roman legions were withdrawn to protect the parts of the Empire closer to Rome from Barbarian incursions. Britain had been suffering from these incursions, too–up until this point, mostly smash-and-grab raids by the Irish, Picts, and Saxons–and now they had no protection. Sometime after the withdrawal of the legions, the nature of these incursions changed from raids to occupation–Irish and especially Saxon settlements being founded in Britain. The Saxon settlements particularly expanded westward, pushing at least some of the Romanized Britons further and further west. Until, right around 500, the advance stopped and held for about 50 years.
That’s history. Legend, of course, has it that Arthur and his knights fought twelve battles against the Saxons and finally defeated them at Mount Badon. (Only, nobody now knows where Mount Badon was.)
The earliest written (allowing, of course, for older oral traditions) mention of this battle in by Gildas. He wasn’t writing a history, though. Or a legend. More a rant about how the weaker leaders of his time had let the Saxons begin to advance across Britain once again.
But:
- Gildas names the war leader who won the battle of Mount Badon as Ambrosius Aurelianus–not Arthur.
- He further claims that Ambrosius was descended of “royal” Roman blood.
- However, he expressly does not call Ambrosius a king, let alone high king–and he does name other kings.
Interestingly, Gildas was writing possibly fifty or so years after the battle, so maybe he knew or had heard first-hand stories about what happened.
And, while Gildas didn’t use the name Arthur, another 6th Century source–a poem from Scotland–does, in praising the accomplishments of a warrior “though he was no Arthur”. That’s all it says about Arthur. Which implies that Arthur’s story–as it existed at that time–was well enough known that it didn’t need explanation.
Other parts of the Arthur legend got added later, though a few are possibly old.
- Merlin isn’t added to the story until the 12th Century. (Too bad, I’m still using Merlin.)
- Lancelot is also a 12th Century addition.
- Guenivere, however, is mentioned in what may be later (11th Century) transcriptions of older oral traditions. In fact, the Welsh Triads mention three separate women–all named Guenevere and all married to Arthur.
- Mordred is also mentioned–although generally only as Arthur’s nephew. And he’s often portrayed in as one of the good guys.
All of this is giving me some ideas.
Read Full Post »
Meredith Mansfield, Author 